Special attributes of everything that was, or is, recognised to be holy (JP)

2 views
Skip to first unread message

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 16, 2008, 2:33:44 AM4/16/08
to
A rather extraordinary class of scientific evidence for the existence
of God, is the difference between attributes of substances or objects
which in past were called "holy", and attributes of other similar
substances or objects which were NOT considered to be holy. For
example, let us consider attributes of such "holy" substances and
objects, as: (1) "daily bread" (by the Christian religion considered
to be a representation of the body of Christ), (2) "coconuts", (3)
"drinking water" (by first Christians used for christening, while by
pagans utilised in water dowsing), (4) "red wine" (considered to
represent the blood of Jesus). If one compares their attributes with
attributes of other very similar substances or objects, e.g. with
attributes of: (1n) white bread or buns, (2n) fruits of tropical
durian, (3n) undrinkable water, (4n) white wine, then outcomes of this
comparison become very meaningful. Namely, it then turns out that
everything that in past was described as "holy" actually displays
attributes which are beneficial to people at many levels, and which do
NOT introduce any side effects. In turn everything that was NOT
considered holy shows also various attributes that are undesirable for
humans - in spite that in almost every aspect it is similar to a
related holy substance or object. For example, in spite that the
"daily bread" and the "white bread" are baked in a similar manner and
from almost the same flour, differences between their consequences for
health of people are huge. Similarly, in spite that "red wine" and
"white wine" are produced through the same process from almost the
same grapes which grew on exactly the same soil, their influences onto
drinking people are very different. In fact these differences in
attributes of whatever in past (and sometimes also today) was called
"holy", from attributes of whatever is NOT considered to be holy,
cannot be justify exclusively with the use of findings and knowledge
of present "atheistic" science. So let us now provide here several
most meaningful examples of extraordinary attributes of something that
in past was considered to be "holy". In order to shorten the
discussion, below is analysed only a single attribute which does NOT
appear in similar substances and objects that are NOT considered to be
holy. But independently from the attribute discussed below, each
substance and object mentioned below displays also a whole range of
further extraordinary attributes which are very difficult to justify
by present atheistic science. So here are these examples:


(1) Irreplaceable attributes of the holy "daily bread". As we know the
humanity invented a large variety of dishes which are made of flour.
To such dishes belong: buns, cakes, pancakes, macaroons, dumplings,
etc., etc. But only the so-called "daily bread" was considered in past
to be holy. This "daily bread" used to be wholegrain bread, baked from
the unsifted wholemeal rye flour. The dough for this bread was
fermented before baking in a similar manner like until present time
are fermented the Japanese "miso" and Korean "kimchi" (for
descriptions of Korean "kim-chi" - see item #B1 from the web page
"korea.htm" - about the mysterious, fascinating, moral, and
progressive Korea). In the result of this fermentation, the daily
bread become black like the soil from which it grew, and thus
considered to be "too common" for wealthy people. Only this bread in
old times was treated with the highest respect and worshiped as holy.
White bread, buns, cakes, and other products made of flour, were NOT
considered to be "holy". In fact I still remember until today from
Poland of the times of my childhood, means Poland of 1950s, such
manifestations of the respect to "daily bread" which were still
practiced then. For example, at that time people used to say sorry to,
and to kiss, a slice of bread when they accidentally allowed it to
fall to the floor. Old-timers never threw away to rubbish even
smallest crumbs of bread. Furthermore, to express their respect to
this bread, men used to take hats off their heads for the duration of
eating - even in most cold days. As present people discovered this,
the formerly "holy" daily bread in fact displays attributes that
deserve the holiness. For example, eating this bread in any quantities
does NOT bring any undesirable consequences to the human health. (On
the other hand eating large amounts of any other products made from
flour turns out to be unhealthy.) Furthermore, people can survive by
eating exclusively this holy "daily bread", while they cannot survive
by eating exclusively any other dish made of flour.


(2) The fact that coconuts never fall on heads of people, in spite
that in light of statistics there should be cases of falling coconuts
hitting some people in heads. As I explained this on a separate web
page "fruit.htm" - about tropical fruits from the area of Pacific, "in
many tropical countries coconut palms are considered to be 'holy
trees'" which were designed especially by God to satisfy all basic
needs of people. (Notice that the holiness of coconuts is recognised
in there in a similar manner as in old Europe the holiness of "daily
bread" was practiced.) The holiness of coconut palms proves itself
because e.g. on small oceanic islands, on which is NOT growing
anything else apart from this palm, in fact coconut palms are
providers of everything. In some religions, e.g. Hinduism, gods
receive gifts from coconuts. The Bible says that palm branches were
placed in front of walking Jesus. This holiness of coconut palms is
there also a source of the deep belief which prevails in countries in
which coconuts grow, namely that in order to NOT harm people heavy
"coconuts never fall onto heads of humans". Actually in many tropical
countries, e.g. in Malaysia, locals are saying that "coconut palms
have eyes" - thus they never drop a coconut on heads of humans. I
personally was very intrigued by this belief. So whenever I had an
opportunity to visit an area where coconut palms grow, I always asked
locals whether they know a case that a coconut fell on someone's head.
I must confirm here, that in spite of my wide and many years long
asking "I never encountered a case that someone knew someone else on
the head of whom a coconut fell". Such a case would be quite well-
known, because the large weight of coconuts combined with the
significant height of coconut palms, would cause that the fell of a
coconut on someone's head would kill such unfortunate person. Of
course, this lack of cases when coconuts fall on human heads is
something extraordinary and it should be explained by the "holiness"
of the palm. After all, other (non-holy) trees drop their fruits
completely at random, in this on human heads. I myself remember a case
when a falling apple hit me in the head - fortunately was ripe and
soft. In Malaysia grows a tasty fruit which just has a size of
coconuts - it is called "durian". It is commonly known there, that at
the time of durians' ripening, people should either keep far from
these trees, or wear protective "hard hats". This is because heavy
durian fruits fall "at random", including onto human heads. So it is
nothing unusual to hear over there about cases of people getting hit
by durian fruits.

Regrettably, someone clearly could NOT stand this extraordinary
attribute of "holy palms" and decided to include also the holy
coconuts into the "scientific atheism". Namely, that someone started
to spread on the behalf of science the untrue claims that supposedly
in the world every year dies from falling coconuts as much as 150
people. These claims make falling coconuts hypothetically even more
dangerous than attacks of sharks. Such false claims were disseminated
in so organised manner, that on their base various insurance companies
started to develop their "coconut policies". Fortunately for the
truth, some scientists decided to get to the bottom of the "research"
on which the coconut deaths claims were based. Outcomes of their
research were summarised later, amongst others, in the article "Lies,
damn lies, and 150 coconut deaths" from page B9 of the New Zealand
newspaper named "Weekend Herald", issue dated on Saturday, April 12,
2008. Searches of these scientists revealed, that the claims were made
up in Australia in 2002. Only then were disseminated all over the
world by an article in Daily Telegraph. At the beginning these claims
referred to the publication of a Canadian professor, in which there
was NO quantitative data on this subject, while the professor himself
denied that he ever accumulated such quantitative data. Thus, in spite
of the lies spread on this subject under a smoke screen of the
official science, in fact coconuts never fall down on heads of people.


(3) The holy river Ganges in India belongs to the most biologically
polluted rivers of the world. But Hindu devotes drink water directly
from the river. In spite of this, Hindu who believe in holiness of
this river never report an illness acquired by drinking biologically
polluted water of this river.


(3) All 12 Apostles drank wine from the same cup. But the Bible does
NOT report that any Apostle acquired an illness passed around due to
this drinking of all of them from the same cup.


The described above documentation for the existence of extraordinary
attributes (which cannot be justified nor explained on the basis of
atheistic science) in all substances and objects acknowledged as
"holy", was adopted from item #F2 from the web page named "bible.htm",
update of 14 April 2008, or later. In turn descriptions and legends
concerning coconuts and fruits of durian discussed above are presented
in items #1 and #4 from the totaliztic web page "fruit.htm" about
tropical fruits from the area of Pacific, update of 15 April 2008, or
later. The web page "fruit.htm" should be available from following
addresses ?if it was not sabotaged there by evil powers that recently
rampage in the internet and all over the Earth (probably these evil
powers are also responsible for organising the lies about 150 deaths
per year from coconuts):


http://bible.webng.com/fruit.htm
http://energy.atspace.org/fruit.htm
http://evidence.ueuo.com/fruit.htm
http://evil.thefreehost.biz/fruit.htm
http://fruit.sitesled.com/fruit.htm
http://fruit.xphost.org/fruit.htm
http://god.ez-sites.ws/fruit.htm
http://karma.freewebpages.org/fruit.htm
http://memorial.awardspace.info/fruit.htm
http://newzealand.myfreewebs.net/fruit.htm
http://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/fruit.htm
http://pigs.freehyperspace.com/fruit.htm
http://parasitism.about.tc/fruit.htm
http://parasitism.xphost.org/fruit.htm
http://rubik.hits.io/fruit.htm
http://tornado.99k.org/fruit.htm
http://wszewilki.greatnow.com/fruit.htm

It is also worth to know that under each address indicated above ALL
the web pages of totalizm should be available (unless some of these
web pages were sabotaged in the meantime). Thus, if someone wishes to
view descriptions from any other web page of totalizm, e.g. from a web
page listed in this message, or listed in other totaliztic messages,
then in the above addresses the name "fruit.htm" is just enough to
exchange for a name of the web page that he or she wishes to view,
e.g. for the name of web page "boiler.htm", "free_energy.htm",
"wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm", "newzealand.htm", "free_energy.htm",
"fe_cell.htm", "malbork_uk.htm", "evolution.htm", "god.htm",
"bible.htm", "text_1_5.htm", "dipolar_gravity.htm", "nirvana.htm",
"evil.htm", "memorial.htm", etc., etc.

Topics related to matters discussed here are also presented on blogs
of totalizm which can be visited at addresses:
http://www.getablog.net/totalizm
http://totalizm.wordpress.com
http://totalizm.myblog.net
http://www.newfreehost.com/weblog/?u=god

Wi the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

Motto: "Everything that is recognised to be 'holy' displays various
attributes which just cannot be explained on basis of atheistic
science."

P.S. The subject of the scientific "evidence for the existence of God"
described here, as well as other subjects related to it, is already
being discussed on various Google discussion groups. For example:

(1) The discussion of the absolute lack of scientific evidence for the
non-existence of God is carried out at the internet addresses:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/20892864b7f7690e/bbdc5b3dc1aed298#bbdc5b3dc1aed298

(2) The discussion of the biological evidence for the existence of
God, is carried out at addresses:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/8040cef26d37261f#de22942cb8fe3aee

(3) The discussion of the physical evidence for the existence of God
is carried out at the internet addresses:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/0b85905d2dc9f083#c374dc041f3c5fdf

Sanity's Little Helper

unread,
Apr 16, 2008, 7:00:32 AM4/16/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote in
news:6f1e3f80-0e7e-419c...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com
to alt.atheism on 16 Apr 2008:

If you belive that

> A rather extraordinary class of scientific evidence for the existence
> of God, is

You'll be convinced by this:
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/buxton/

--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".

Not authentic without this signature.

Don Martin

unread,
Apr 16, 2008, 8:00:17 AM4/16/08
to
On Apr 16, 2:33 am, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> A rather extraordinary class of scientific evidence for the existence
> of God, is the difference between attributes of substances or objects
> which in past were called "holy", and attributes of other similar
> substances or objects which were NOT considered to be holy.

What a dreary, tortured load of mental masturbation.

Robert Weldon

unread,
Apr 16, 2008, 12:00:48 PM4/16/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f1e3f80-0e7e-419c...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
-usual janpak crap snipped

Why do you insist on torturing poor defenseless electrons like that?

Tokay Pino Gris

unread,
Apr 16, 2008, 12:23:53 PM4/16/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:

Basically Bullshit, but I will take it apart...

> A rather extraordinary class of scientific evidence for the existence
> of God, is the difference between attributes of substances or objects
> which in past were called "holy", and attributes of other similar
> substances or objects which were NOT considered to be holy. For
> example, let us consider attributes of such "holy" substances and
> objects, as: (1) "daily bread" (by the Christian religion considered
> to be a representation of the body of Christ), (2) "coconuts", (3)
> "drinking water" (by first Christians used for christening, while by
> pagans utilised in water dowsing), (4) "red wine" (considered to
> represent the blood of Jesus). If one compares their attributes with
> attributes of other very similar substances or objects, e.g. with
> attributes of: (1n) white bread or buns, (2n) fruits of tropical
> durian, (3n) undrinkable water, (4n) white wine, then outcomes of this
> comparison become very meaningful.

So far to the setting. Nothing worng with it, still is Bullshit, though.

Namely, it then turns out that
> everything that in past was described as "holy" actually displays
> attributes which are beneficial to people at many levels, and which do
> NOT introduce any side effects.

Ah, a testable prediction! Great!

In turn everything that was NOT
> considered holy shows also various attributes that are undesirable for
> humans - in spite that in almost every aspect it is similar to a
> related holy substance or object.

Another testable prediction! This is getting somewhere.

For example, in spite that the
> "daily bread" and the "white bread" are baked in a similar manner and
> from almost the same flour, differences between their consequences for
> health of people are huge.

Ups. But "no side effects" in "daily bread? You heard of Acrylamid? In
there. Same as white bread.

Similarly, in spite that "red wine" and
> "white wine" are produced through the same process from almost the
> same grapes which grew on exactly the same soil, their influences onto
> drinking people are very different.

Studies show that the heart-protection factor of white and red wine is
the same. And "alkohol" is the same as well... "no side effects"? Be
serious.

In fact these differences in
> attributes of whatever in past (and sometimes also today) was called
> "holy", from attributes of whatever is NOT considered to be holy,
> cannot be justify exclusively with the use of findings and knowledge
> of present "atheistic" science.

Would be. It just isn't true, that's all.

So let us now provide here several
> most meaningful examples of extraordinary attributes of something that
> in past was considered to be "holy". In order to shorten the
> discussion, below is analysed only a single attribute which does NOT
> appear in similar substances and objects that are NOT considered to be
> holy. But independently from the attribute discussed below, each
> substance and object mentioned below displays also a whole range of
> further extraordinary attributes which are very difficult to justify
> by present atheistic science. So here are these examples:
>
>

> (1) [daily bread]
Still is bread, still has flour in it, you heat it, you get acrylamid.

>
> (2) The fact that coconuts never fall on heads of people

Wrong

> Still, there have been instances of coconuts falling from palms and injuring people, and claims of some fatalities. This was the subject of a paper published in 1984 that won the Ig Nobel Prize in 2001. Falling coconut deaths are often used as a comparison to shark attacks; the claim is often made that a person is more likely to be killed by a falling coconut than by a shark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut

Coconuts do fall on people. Granted, no fatalities have been logged, but
they DO fall on people.


[snip the rest. Just Bullshit]


Tokay


--

What passes for optimism is most often the effect of
intellectual error.

Raymond Aron

Tokay Pino Gris

unread,
Apr 16, 2008, 12:36:55 PM4/16/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> A rather extraordinary class of scientific evidence for the existence
> of God, is the difference between attributes of substances or objects
> which in past were called "holy", and attributes of other similar
> substances or objects which were NOT considered to be holy.


I just found another error.

How exactly is this "scientific evidence for the existence of god"?

I mean, it is not such a bad idea NOT to eat pigs if you have no way to
ensure that there are no trichines in them.
Also, praying five times a day in the way muslims do (have you SEEN
them? That is situps! Thats sports!)
Washing before prayer? Hey, if the way to get people to clean themselves
is to tell them they have to wash before prayer....

Hey, ever heard of the healing hands of monarchs in the dark ages?
There IS a grain of truth in there!
Before people were brought in front of the king to be touched, they were
quite thoroughly CLEANED! Hey, and an infected wound... if you clean it?
You know what? It gets better!

Hey, and drinking wine in these ancient times? Of COURSE it was better
than drinking water. You know what alkohol is? A disinfectant! Water,
you couldn't store, it gets rotten. But Wine? You can store almost
indefinetly (granted, it becomes vinegar probably). AND you are not
getting Montezumas Revenge.

So, let's say you are a teeny bit smarter than the masses. And you know
that people do get ill from eating pork (trichins for example. You don't
know about them, but you know that people get sick). How do you get
people NOT to eat it? You say it is "unclean", "unholy" and that "god
forbids it". Works just dandy.

Doesn't prove that royal hands do heal or that gods exit.

And CERTAINLY is not scientific evidence that gods exist.

Hatter

unread,
Apr 16, 2008, 5:11:22 PM4/16/08
to
On Apr 16, 2:33 am, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> A rather extraordinary class of scientific evidence for the existence
> of God, is the difference between attributes of substances or objects
> which in past were called "holy", and attributes of other similar
> substances or objects which were NOT considered to be holy.

The difference is pure bullshitonium.

Hatter

adman

unread,
Apr 16, 2008, 5:31:54 PM4/16/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f1e3f80-0e7e-419c...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

What a fascinating post. But of course the atheist will scoff, choke, and
ridicule.

panam...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 16, 2008, 5:36:45 PM4/16/08
to
On Apr 16, 2:33 am, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> A rather extraordinary class of scientific evidence for the existence
> of God, is the difference between attributes of substances or objects
> which in past were called "holy", and attributes of other similar
> substances or objects which were NOT considered to be holy. For
> example, let us consider attributes of such "holy" substances and
> objects, as:

1.) Kitsune statues at shrines:

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=kitsune+statues&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

2.) Straight beam and curved beam torii:

http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/shrine-guide-2.shtml#gate
http://www.aisf.or.jp/~jaanus/deta/t/torii.htm

3.) Misogi harai:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o68qETSMQpU

You've convinced me. I am no longer an atheist. Inari is God. Happy
Harvest an' lots o' babies, y'all!!

Didn't work out quite the way you planned, did it, you moron?

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain

Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

panam...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 16, 2008, 5:40:07 PM4/16/08
to
On Apr 16, 5:31 pm, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote:
> <janpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:6f1e3f80-0e7e-419c...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> What a fascinating post. But of course the atheist will scoff, choke, and
> ridicule.

Aw, wassamatta, my lil' missionary? Magic spells still not working?
Maybe you should go home and practice. Come back in about thirty
years.

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!

Preventer of Work

unread,
Apr 16, 2008, 8:36:02 PM4/16/08
to
adman wrote:
> <janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6f1e3f80-0e7e-419c...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> What a fascinating post. But of course the atheist will scoff, choke, and
> ridicule.
>

We would only choke if we swallowed that load of horse pucky.

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 16, 2008, 10:55:31 PM4/16/08
to
On Apr 17, 4:23 am, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:
...

> Coconuts do fall on people. Granted, no fatalities have been logged, but
> they DO fall on people.
...
YES, even Wikipedia repeats this lie originating from Australia about
these supposed "150 coconut deaths". The truth is that "coconuts never
(on their own) fall on people". The only cases of coconuts hitting
someone are when another person throws them. But then it is NOT the
tree that is responsible for outcomes, but a person who throws
coconuts. Actually, you are unable to provide even a songle documented
case of a coconut falling on a person. However, computer keyboards are
patient and they can accept your imaginary claims. But these claims
beling to the category of "Lies,
damn lies, and 150 coconut deaths".

By the way, you should NOT believe in everything that irresponsible
people do write. Someone saw the writing on a wooden fence saying
"pussy", but when he triet to feel it, he got hurted by a spliter from
this fence. If you believe in every rubbish that irresponsible people
do write, do not be surprised that you also may get a "splinter".

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

Hatter

unread,
Apr 17, 2008, 8:31:19 AM4/17/08
to
On Apr 16, 5:31 pm, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote:
> <janpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:6f1e3f80-0e7e-419c...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> What a fascinating post. But of course the atheist will scoff, choke, and
> ridicule.
>
Guess why? It is scoffable, choke worthy, and ridiculous. What else
could we do? Laud this pile of bullshit?

Hatter

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 17, 2008, 9:21:56 PM4/17/08
to
On Apr 17, 12:36 pm, Preventer of Work <not_t...@nospam.xxx> wrote:
...
> > What a fascinating post. But of course the atheist will scoff, choke, and
> > ridicule.
...
The above illustrates the main problem of present people, means both
"atheists" and "believers in God". They spit at each other, scoff at
each other, and do all possible nasty things, only do NOT discuss
constructively. On the other hand, in order to establish the truth,
both sides - means "atheists" as well as "believers in God" must start
to discuss all the matters constructively. This is what I am trying to
do, amongst others, through this thread. The reason - I am probably
the only scientist in the world who researches God rationally and
constructively in the same way as other scientists research e.g. the
behaviour of the Earth's atmosphere and reasons why we experience the
present climate change.

Almost the first thing that God in Her wisdom let me know when I
started to research Her, is that She treats the same way both
"atheists" and "believers in God". She only judges people by how moral
they are and how morally they act in their lives, not whether they
believe in Her or NOT. The reason for such a stand of God is that
nothing in the real universe can be perfect and deprived of drawbacks.
Thus for example "believers in God" act morally and have good moral
skeletons, but they fail to advance the knowledge and technology of
the humanity as a whole. After all, a typical believer has the same
answer for every possible quention, namely "God make it so". Thus
believers do not see any reason why they should seek knowledge,
improve technology, advance medicine, etc. If this would be just up to
believers in God, we would still live on trees or in caves. In turn
"atheists" are the main reason of technological and scientific
advancement of the humanity. But they promote the moral decadency.
After all, for them counts only what happens now and what they manage
to enjoy instantly. They do NOT care for their next incarnation,
future of the humanity, fate of their soul, or for acting moraly in
their lives. Thus God is actually in the proverbial situation "between
the devil and the big blue sea". The only option God has in the
present circumstances, is to promote both views simulatenlusly, means
to promote "believes in God" in order to mainain the high moral
standards of humanity, as well as to simulatenously promote the
"atheism" in order to maintain the scientific and technical
development of the humanity. This is why God gave us the so-called
"free will" - so that we make up our minds whether we wish to believe
or not in God. It is also why God in everything that is doing sticks
to the so-called "canon of ambiguity". (This canon is explained in
subsection JB7.4 from volume 7 of monograph [1/4] available free of
charge under the name "text_1_4.htm" from all totaliztic internet
addresses listed before.) The "canon of ambiguity" states that
"everything that God does, She must do it is such ambiguous manner
that people confronted with this can explain it in any way they wish".

What I am trying to say through the above explanations, is that I do
NOT intend nor wish to change anyones personal believes. I am actually
grateful that atheists do exist and that they lift the knowledge level
of this civilisation (although I do NOT like their arogance towards
morality). I only try to establish truths relating to God through a
rational and unbiased discussion between atheists and believers. (It
is easy to realise, because I do research God and I am absolutely sure
that God does exist, that I represent the point of view of a devoted
scientist-believer in God and therefore I try to learn God's goals,
principles of action, intentions, etc.). And one of these truths that
I am trying to establish, is that at the moment a healthy balance
between believers and atheists is actually out of balance. So God must
correct this situation somehow - and we see the way God started to
correct it (e.g. by intending to exterminate the majority of non-
believing humanity). So if we manage to find out the way of helping
God to restore this balance again, then God will NOT need to
exterminate all these three-quorters of the human population. For this
reason it is in vital interest of all of us, means the same "believers
in God" as "athists", to help restoring this balance. Of course, we
can help it in an easy way, by stopping the dissemination of
exclusively "athistic" knowledge, and starting to disseminate the
balanced knowledge which shows both points of view. This is the reason
why I am devoted to point the attention of people at these aspects of
our knowledge which certify for the existence of God. In this way I
try to contribute to the restoration of the balance. Also in this way
I do NOT try to change anyone's view, but only provide scientific
facts on the basis of which everyone have the right to make up his or
her mind in any way that he or she wishes.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

P.S. About the current situation on the Earth, when the healthy
balance between believers (who maintain morality of the human
population, but fail to develop humanity scientifically) and atheists
(who lift the knowledge of humanity but cause the moral decadence) got
"out of balance", is a new web page of totalizm named
"will.htm" (about roles of the "free will" and the "canon of
ambiguity" in the mainatinance of simulatneous scientific and moral
development of humans). I invite everyone to have a look at this new
web page.

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 18, 2008, 10:06:29 PM4/18/08
to
On Apr 18, 12:31 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

> Guess why? It is scoffable, choke worthy, and ridiculous. What else
> could we do? Laud this pile of bullshit?
...
Of course, you could also discuss it rationally and constructively.
But a constructive and rational discussion belongs to the sphere of
"moral activities" - as it obeys so-called "moral laws". On the other
hand, it is well known that every present atheist does NOT know how to
act morally. So atheists can only swear, spit, scoff, and do whatever
immoral they learned to do, at all logical and scientific arguments
which do NOT fit into their close minds. No wonder that because of the
overwhelming majority of scientists subscribe to such atheistic views,
the present world is going down as we see it going right now.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

John Smith

unread,
Apr 18, 2008, 10:15:16 PM4/18/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:578e83b1-1cef-485b...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 18, 12:31 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Guess why? It is scoffable, choke worthy, and ridiculous. What else
> could we do? Laud this pile of bullshit?
...
Of course, you could also discuss it rationally and constructively.

***You cannot discuss piles of shit and puke rationally.
***Present sdomething ratinal, and it will be discussed rationally.


But a constructive and rational discussion belongs to the sphere of
"moral activities" - as it obeys so-called "moral laws". On the other
hand, it is well known that every present atheist does NOT know how to
act morally.

***Well know by whom .......... idiotic morons like you?


So atheists can only swear, spit, scoff, and do whatever
immoral they learned to do, at all logical and scientific arguments
which do NOT fit into their close minds.

***Surely you're NOT insane enough to suggest that the original post was
either logical or scientific ....are you?!?!?!?!


No wonder that because of the
overwhelming majority of scientists subscribe to such atheistic views,
the present world is going down as we see it going right now.

**Prove the present world is going down.
**Prove that atheism is the cause of this.
**Prove that science is the cause of this.
**Prove that there is a VALID link between atheism and science.
**Prove that science is the cause of this.
**Prove that the overwhelming majority of scientists are atheists.


With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

**Just another pile of puke shit crap!


janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 18, 2008, 10:26:59 PM4/18/08
to
On Apr 19, 2:15 pm, "John Smith" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...

> **Prove the present world is going down.
> **Prove that atheism is the cause of this.
> **Prove that science is the cause of this.
> **Prove that there is a VALID link between atheism and science.
> **Prove that science is the cause of this.
> **Prove that the overwhelming majority of scientists are atheists.
...
Well, you also cannot formally prove that is otherwise. On the other
hand, it is enough to look around us and see what happens with the
present civilisation. Immorality, pesimism, devaluation, unemployment,
hunger, wars, etc., etc. All these represent items of evidence that
the above does NOT even need to be proven, and still is true.

Cory Albrecht

unread,
Apr 18, 2008, 11:19:22 PM4/18/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote, on 2008/04/18 22:26:
> On Apr 19, 2:15 pm, "John Smith" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
>> **Prove the present world is going down.
>> **Prove that atheism is the cause of this.
>> **Prove that science is the cause of this.
>> **Prove that there is a VALID link between atheism and science.
>> **Prove that science is the cause of this.
>> **Prove that the overwhelming majority of scientists are atheists.
> ...
> Well, you also cannot formally prove that is otherwise. On the other

And you can't formally prove that the universe and everything in it was
not created Last Thursday, along with all our memories of what we think
happened before that day.

Sorry, Jan, but declaiming "You can't prove me wrong, therefore I am
right" is nor actually proving your claims.

> hand, it is enough to look around us and see what happens with the
> present civilisation. Immorality, pesimism, devaluation, unemployment,
> hunger, wars, etc., etc. All these represent items of evidence that
> the above does NOT even need to be proven, and still is true.

How much you wanna bet that all those things existed back in the very
religious Middle ages in Europe? There for, by your (il)logic, all that
stuff is caused by Christianity.

Free Lunch

unread,
Apr 18, 2008, 11:47:32 PM4/18/08
to
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:06:29 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
janp...@gmail.com wrote in
<578e83b1-1cef-485b...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:

>On Apr 18, 12:31 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>> Guess why? It is scoffable, choke worthy, and ridiculous. What else
>> could we do? Laud this pile of bullshit?
>...
>Of course, you could also discuss it rationally and constructively.
>But a constructive and rational discussion belongs to the sphere of
>"moral activities" - as it obeys so-called "moral laws". On the other
>hand, it is well known that every present atheist does NOT know how to
>act morally.

Ah, yes, the totally unsupported accusation made by religionists because
religionists claim that they are moral no matter what evil they do. If
they murder it is God's will. If they steal, it is God's will. If they
rape or terrorize or engage in any despicable act, they are being moral
because God demands that they act in such a manner.

>So atheists can only swear, spit, scoff, and do whatever
>immoral they learned to do, at all logical and scientific arguments
>which do NOT fit into their close minds. No wonder that because of the
>overwhelming majority of scientists subscribe to such atheistic views,
>the present world is going down as we see it going right now.
>
>With the totaliztic salute,
>Jan Pajak

Scientists have already discovered many things that prove such nonsense
to be false. What rational discussion is there to engage in? Please tell
me.

Of course, the world is not going down. Life for most humans is better
than it ever was in history, though people who are offended by reality
have been whining about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket,
or variations, for thousands of years.

Free Lunch

unread,
Apr 18, 2008, 11:54:16 PM4/18/08
to
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:26:59 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
janp...@gmail.com wrote in
<5b1ebdaa-498a-4d19...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:

>On Apr 19, 2:15 pm, "John Smith" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...
>> **Prove the present world is going down.
>> **Prove that atheism is the cause of this.
>> **Prove that science is the cause of this.
>> **Prove that there is a VALID link between atheism and science.
>> **Prove that science is the cause of this.
>> **Prove that the overwhelming majority of scientists are atheists.
>...
>Well, you also cannot formally prove that is otherwise. On the other
>hand, it is enough to look around us and see what happens with the
>present civilisation.

No it is not. You are demonstrating a frightening ignorance of the past.


>Immorality, pesimism, devaluation, unemployment,
>hunger, wars, etc., etc. All these represent items of evidence that
>the above does NOT even need to be proven, and still is true.

And nothing about that has anything at all to do with gods. If it does,
it only goes to show that the god you claim exists does not do anything.
Of course, it does not because your assertions do not fit actual
history. Your list has always existed with minor sad variations.
Clearly, you would prefer to be whining about the evil that men do today
than have been somewhere that real evil was being done, say 65 years
ago, or any other of many times that were far, far worse than this
century.

>With the totaliztic salute,
>Jan Pajak

Hasn't Poland suffered enough totalitarian salutes?

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 19, 2008, 8:29:31 PM4/19/08
to
On Apr 19, 3:19 pm, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...

> And you can't formally prove that the universe and everything in it was
> not created Last Thursday, along with all our memories of what we think
> happened before that day.
>
> Sorry, Jan, but declaiming "You can't prove me wrong, therefore I am
> right" is nor actually proving your claims.
...
I see - you believe in "guilty unless proven innocent"! Well, I can
actually prove that "the universe and everything in it was
not created Last Thursday" - the scientific foundations for such a
proof are provided in item #B1 (on the self-evolution of God) of the
totaliztic web page "evolution.htm". I recommend to have a look at
this web page and at item #B1 in it. You should be able to find it at
following addresses:
http://bible.webng.com/evolution.htm
http://energy.atspace.org/evolution.htm
http://evidence.ueuo.com/evolution.htm
http://evil.thefreehost.biz/evolution.htm
http://fruit.sitesled.com/bevolution.htm
http://fruit.xphost.org/evolution.htm
http://god.ez-sites.ws/evolution.htm
http://karma.freewebpages.org/evolution.htm
http://memorial.awardspace.info/evolution.htm
http://newzealand.myfreewebs.net/evolution.htm
http://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/evolution.htm
http://pigs.freehyperspace.com/evolution.htm
http://parasitism.about.tc/evolution.htm
http://parasitism.xphost.org/evolution.htm
http://rubik.hits.io/evolution.htm
http://tornado.99k.org/evolution.htm
http://wszewilki.greatnow.com/evolution.htm

adman

unread,
Apr 19, 2008, 8:55:06 PM4/19/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:78bdf3fd-90ee-47c9...@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

------------------------------------------------


Your posts are inspirational.

Day Brown

unread,
Apr 19, 2008, 9:16:53 PM4/19/08
to
On Apr 19, 7:55 pm, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote:
> Your posts are inspirational.
18th century Bengalese Saint Ramprasad said that everything you see is
part of "a projected matrix out of the mind of Kali". He thot the
prime deity was female.

But he went on to say that there are a myriad worlds, so there prolly
are some that are just as you think. As to how long they have existed,
that depends on who getsta define time. I dont see why we have to
accept your definition.

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 20, 2008, 9:07:55 PM4/20/08
to
On Apr 20, 1:16 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
...

> 18th century Bengalese Saint Ramprasad said that everything you see is
> part of "a projected matrix out of the mind of Kali". He thot the
> prime deity was female.
...

> I dont see why we have to accept your definition.

Well, it is NOT my intention to make you accept my definition. I am
presenting my ideas here so that you can examine them and thu8s arrive
to your own conclusions. In turn what your conclusions are, it is NOT
my bussiness but your personal matter. The point is, as I tried to
explain it before, that we only should make sure that "all points of
view have equal rights" - this should include views disseminated by
"believers in God" to which I classify myself. After all, lately the
views of "believers in God" are suppressed, scoffed at, ridiculed,
etc., by so-called "atheists". Thus practically views of "beleivers in
God" are almost NOT represented in the official human science. About
the time to correct this mistake, because "all views must be equal",
and NO person should be persecuted or offended for the views that he
or she adheres to.

Now returning to my claim that the most vital component of God has
attributes of a female, it originates from the analysis of properties
of this component. This component is actually a "huge natural program"
- by Christianity called the "Holy Ghost". In turn a natural program
displays all atributes of a "monopolar field" which is a blueprint for
feminity. So the "Holy Ghost" - which is the main carrier of the power
of God to think logically and to create, is actually a kind of
"monopolar field or program" which represents the essence of feminity.
However, there are two further components of God, namely the Christian
"God Father" and "God Son", both of which represent dipolar fields.
This God Father is actually a kind of "liquid computer" - similarly is
"God Son" which is a material form made of this "liquid computer" plus
programs that control it. Thus, these two other components of God are
actually "males" as they represent the essence of "masculity" - means
represent a "dipolar field". Anyway, all this information is provided
on the totaliztic web page namedf "god.htm", which also can be
accessed and viewed at addresses that were listed before.

Tokay Pino Gris

unread,
Apr 20, 2008, 10:25:54 PM4/20/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 20, 1:16 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
> ...
>> 18th century Bengalese Saint Ramprasad said that everything you see is
>> part of "a projected matrix out of the mind of Kali". He thot the
>> prime deity was female.
> ...
>> I dont see why we have to accept your definition.
>
> Well, it is NOT my intention to make you accept my definition. I am
> presenting my ideas here so that you can examine them and thu8s arrive
> to your own conclusions. In turn what your conclusions are, it is NOT
> my bussiness but your personal matter. The point is, as I tried to
> explain it before, that we only should make sure that "all points of
> view have equal rights"

Oh goodie. This sounds like another mix up of "free speech" and
"scientific method".

You see, in science, you have to show evidence for what you say and what
you say has to be in accordance with what is know before that OR explain
and/or show why what we previously thought is wrong.


- this should include views disseminated by
> "believers in God" to which I classify myself. After all, lately the
> views of "believers in God" are suppressed, scoffed at, ridiculed,
> etc., by so-called "atheists". Thus practically views of "beleivers in
> God" are almost NOT represented in the official human science. About
> the time to correct this mistake, because "all views must be equal",
> and NO person should be persecuted or offended for the views that he
> or she adheres to.

See? Science is not about "points of view". It's about evidence and what
theories explain the evidence.
[1]

You can SAY all you want, but unless you have evidence for your "theory"
(in this case "wild guess" fits the mark better) it is not science.

Unless you have evidence that is in accordance with your "point of view"
NOT "all views must be equal". FAR from that. If your "point of view"
has no evidence and data that supports it, it has no place in science.

So, of COURSE the "theory" (I cringe to use that word in this context)
that the world is 6000 years old is ridiculed. Not just by atheists, by
the way. By educated theists as well. Because there is NO data that
supports this claim.

The scientific method is not about free speech. Oh, you can say all you
like, that the sun is dragged over the sky by three horses and such. But
it is not science.

>
> Now returning to my claim that the most vital component of God has
> attributes of a female, it originates from the analysis of properties
> of this component. This component is actually a "huge natural program"
> - by Christianity called the "Holy Ghost". In turn a natural program
> displays all atributes of a "monopolar field" which is a blueprint for
> feminity. So the "Holy Ghost" - which is the main carrier of the power
> of God to think logically and to create, is actually a kind of
> "monopolar field or program" which represents the essence of feminity.

Ehm. You can of course give your alleged thingy all the attributes you
like. But don't expect anyone to call it science.

I could just as well say that the mullabulalonga has three ears and that
is because it just has one leg. Of course I can SAY that. But since
there is no evidence that even suggests that a mullabulalonga even
exists, all attributes I attach to it are fiction. And NOT science.
(btw. I just actually googled "mullabulalonga" just to be sure)

> However, there are two further components of God, namely the Christian
> "God Father" and "God Son", both of which represent dipolar fields.
> This God Father is actually a kind of "liquid computer" - similarly is
> "God Son" which is a material form made of this "liquid computer" plus
> programs that control it. Thus, these two other components of God are
> actually "males" as they represent the essence of "masculity" - means
> represent a "dipolar field". Anyway, all this information is provided
> on the totaliztic web page namedf "god.htm", which also can be
> accessed and viewed at addresses that were listed before.


Oh, feel free to say that. As long as you don't call it "science".

The scientific method is quite strict. If you follow the rules and can
actually prove what you say, you WILL get it into the science classes.
In cases it might take some time, but there is no way around it.

Just, so far, no evidence WHATSOEVER even hints at a god (and I DID and
DO ask for it), so what attributes you attach to this entity is beside
the point. The premise is missing and so this is just another
mullabulalonga with three ears.


Tokay

[1] I am freely quoting from a youtube video that explains this stuff
quite well.
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=3901038854823043736&q=creationist+laugh&total=384&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0&hl=de


--

Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark
side, and it holds the universe together ...

Carl Zwanzig

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 21, 2008, 12:23:16 AM4/21/08
to
On Apr 21, 2:25 pm, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:
...
> You see, in science, you have to show evidence for what you say and what
> you say has to be in accordance with what is know before that OR explain
> and/or show why what we previously thought is wrong.
...
I already presented my evidence for the existence of God. You could
see it at the beginning of this thread, as well as on numerous other
threads that I autorised - for example have a look at the thread
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/3511120c588e0a16/6c4ba1babcee49b5#6c4ba1babcee49b5
for my formal scientific proof completed with methods of mathematical
logic that "God does exist", or the thread
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/0b85905d2dc9f083#c374dc041f3c5fdf
for various items of physical evidence for the existence of God, or
the thread http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/8040cef26d37261f#de22942cb8fe3aee
for numerous items of the biological evidence that God does exit, or
the thread http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/20892864b7f7690e/bbdc5b3dc1aed298#bbdc5b3dc1aed298
which proves that otherwise to all these countless items of scientific
evidence for the existence of God, the present science is unable to
show even a shred of evidence that God does NOT exist.

However, contrary to this overwhelming evidence for the existence of
God, you still seem to argue that "God does NOT exist". I do respect
your view. After all, you have the right to believe in whatever you
wish - including that the Earth is flat and that the Moon is made of a
cheese. The point is that you have the right to make your own opinion,
but NOT to prevent the access of other people from access to the truth
and to the evidence about God. My goal is to only make sure that you,
as well as all other people, have facts available when you (or they)
make up your mind and opinion. So that your opinion is an "informed
one" - NOT just a guess.

The reason why I insist in making this evidence available to
interested people is that previously NO scientific evidence for the
existence of God was allowed to be disseminated amongst people. So
people had NO chance for making an "informed decision" in matters of
God. Thus, a lot of people become "atheists" only because they were
misled by scientists and by this lack of information. In turn becoming
an "athist" IS having various negative consequences - thus if someone
becomes an "atheist", he or she should take this "dangerous path to
nowhere" on the basis of an "informed decision", not just on basis of
being "tricked" into it by other atheists or badly informed
scientists.

Tokay Pino Gris

unread,
Apr 21, 2008, 1:11:39 AM4/21/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2:25 pm, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:
> ...
>> You see, in science, you have to show evidence for what you say and what
>> you say has to be in accordance with what is know before that OR explain
>> and/or show why what we previously thought is wrong.
> ...
> I already presented my evidence for the existence of God. You could
> see it at the beginning of this thread, as well as on numerous other
> threads that I autorised - for example have a look at the thread
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/3511120c588e0a16/6c4ba1babcee49b5#6c4ba1babcee49b5
> for my formal scientific proof completed with methods of mathematical
> logic that "God does exist", or the thread

Yes. I actually read that.
Basic proposition 1:
a.) "Genetic code displays all attributes of intelligent
codes"

Prove that. A code, yes. Intelligent? How?

b.) Shannons Theory does not exactly say that.

Basic proposition 2:
"[...] required the work of either
superior being of a supernatural knowledge, power, and efficiency of
God, or a multitude of unanimously cooperating with each other human-
like intelligent beings of capabilities and efficiencies similar to
these of humans."

Bullshit. Non sequitur OR unbased assumption.

Basic proposition 3? A non sequitur.


And so on.....


> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/0b85905d2dc9f083#c374dc041f3c5fdf
> for various items of physical evidence for the existence of God, or

I just pick out one:
8. Telepathy
[...]Therefore physicists refuse
to research telepathy.[..]

False. It WAS researched and found not to work.

Also a lot of non sequiturs in there.


> the thread http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/8040cef26d37261f#de22942cb8fe3aee
> for numerous items of the biological evidence that God does exit, or

Oh yeah!
"Genetic code. As we already know jolly well, genetic code is
a kind of language. In turn every language can be formed only if it is
formulated by some intelligence."

non sequitur....

Oh boy. And it goes on like this. Quite a funky list of "evidence".

Either it's non sequitur or "looks like".

> the thread http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/20892864b7f7690e/bbdc5b3dc1aed298#bbdc5b3dc1aed298
> which proves that otherwise to all these countless items of scientific
> evidence for the existence of God, the present science is unable to
> show even a shred of evidence that God does NOT exist.

Oh, not that one again? You can't prove a negative.

>
> However, contrary to this overwhelming evidence for the existence of
> God, you still seem to argue that "God does NOT exist".

Since all that above (as far as I scanned it) is either non sequitur or
word tricks or "looks like" arguments....

Besides, I don't "argue" that god does not exist, I ASSUME the null
hypothesis that "there are no gods".

I do respect
> your view. After all, you have the right to believe in whatever you
> wish - including that the Earth is flat and that the Moon is made of a
> cheese. The point is that you have the right to make your own opinion,
> but NOT to prevent the access of other people from access to the truth
> and to the evidence about God. My goal is to only make sure that you,
> as well as all other people, have facts available when you (or they)
> make up your mind and opinion. So that your opinion is an "informed
> one" - NOT just a guess.

Good idea. Sadly, this stuff you linked to does not qualify as
scientific evidence.

>
> The reason why I insist in making this evidence available to
> interested people is that previously NO scientific evidence for the
> existence of God was allowed to be disseminated amongst people.

Since it ISN'T scientific evidence...

It's either a non sequitur or word tricks or "looks like". None of which
are scientific evidence.

So
> people had NO chance for making an "informed decision" in matters of
> God. Thus, a lot of people become "atheists" only because they were
> misled by scientists and by this lack of information. In turn becoming
> an "athist" IS having various negative consequences - thus if someone
> becomes an "atheist", he or she should take this "dangerous path to
> nowhere" on the basis of an "informed decision", not just on basis of
> being "tricked" into it by other atheists or badly informed
> scientists.

Hey, if you HAVE scientific evidence, propose it. Not the mumbo-jumbo
above, though.


Tokay

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 21, 2008, 7:34:08 PM4/21/08
to
On Apr 21, 5:11 pm, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:
...
> Hey, if you HAVE scientific evidence, propose it. Not the mumbo-jumbo
> above, though.
...
Well, in the Polish language there ios a proverb "if you wish to hit a
dog, you always find a stick". What it means is that if you disagree
with something you can always "take from the ceiling" various
arguments to the contrary. However, I would like you compare my proof
and my evidence, e.g. with the proof and with the evidence for the
existence of so-called "big bang" which is one of contr-arguments of
the science against God. You will find that this "big bang" does NOT
have anything in support, yet still you do NOT seem to rubbish it.

Free Lunch

unread,
Apr 21, 2008, 7:39:45 PM4/21/08
to
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:34:08 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism
janp...@gmail.com wrote in
<e43c36cc-8f60-4272...@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>:

We cannot compare them. The Big Bang is a discovery of science. Your
claims are not.

Richo

unread,
Apr 21, 2008, 7:54:55 PM4/21/08
to
On Apr 16, 4:33 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> A rather extraordinary class of scientific evidence for the existence
> of God, is the difference between attributes of substances or objects
> which in past were called "holy", and attributes of other similar
> substances or objects which were NOT considered to be holy.

The distinction between Holy and profane is purely in the "mind of the
beholder".
Totally subjective.
What is holy to one person is just an ordinary object or substance to
a non believer.

Holiness (or Divinity for that matter) is not *intrinsic* to any
object or substance it exists only as a relationship between the
believer and the thing or substance.
Saying "X" is holy is meaningless unless you specify to whom "X" is
holy.

Here endeth the lesson.

Cheers, Mark.

Tokay Pino Gris

unread,
Apr 22, 2008, 10:27:05 AM4/22/08
to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Read and learn.


Tokay

--

Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original
dimensions.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 22, 2008, 9:38:58 PM4/22/08
to
On Apr 23, 2:27 am, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:
...
> Read and learn.
...
Well, on the totaliztic web page "dipolar_gravity.htm" (see item #D2
in there) I have proven conclusively, that the supposed evidence for
the "big bang" is actually the evidence for the "dipolar chcracter of
gravitational field" - means the evidence for the actual NON-EXISTENCE
(lack) of the "big bang". In turn you wish me to revisit this
errornoeus evidence. So I would also suggest that you "read and learn"
or rather "open your mind - because your knowledge is a bit out of
date".

adman

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 5:05:35 PM4/23/08
to

"Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.g...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:fuksjo$eje$03$4...@news.t-online.com...

| janp...@gmail.com wrote:
| > On Apr 21, 5:11 pm, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:
| > ...
| >> Hey, if you HAVE scientific evidence, propose it. Not the mumbo-jumbo
| >> above, though.
| > ...
| > Well, in the Polish language there ios a proverb "if you wish to hit a
| > dog, you always find a stick". What it means is that if you disagree
| > with something you can always "take from the ceiling" various
| > arguments to the contrary. However, I would like you compare my proof
| > and my evidence, e.g. with the proof and with the evidence for the
| > existence of so-called "big bang" which is one of contr-arguments of
| > the science against God. You will find that this "big bang" does NOT
| > have anything in support, yet still you do NOT seem to rubbish it.
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
|
| Read and learn.
|
|
| Tokay

There is nothing to learn, but speculation.
The Big Bang relies on a singularity which defies physics and so far there
is no unifying theory.

adman

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 5:09:42 PM4/23/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9c3ff67-4cb7-4d29...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Excellent work Jan

Cory Albrecht

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 6:04:02 PM4/23/08
to

Did you know that Jan also believes that one can construct a pyramid
power hat to increase one's telepathy, that invisible aliens occupy
earth and that telekinetic batteries can provide free energy?
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/2352/ebook-Dr-Jan-Pajak-Thought-Pyramid>

Jan is, simply put, a kook of the first order, thought admittedly he is
far politer than the run of the mill kook.

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 11:24:57 PM4/23/08
to
On Apr 24, 10:04 am, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
> Did you know that Jan also believes that one can construct a pyramid
> power hat to increase one's telepathy, that invisible aliens occupy
> earth and that telekinetic batteries can provide free energy?
> <http://www.scribd.com/doc/2352/ebook-Dr-Jan-Pajak-Thought-Pyramid>
>
> Jan is, simply put, a kook of the first order, thought admittedly he is
> far politer than the run of the mill kook.- Hide quoted text -
...
YES, true, I have also proven formally that "UFOs do exist". This
formal proof for the existence of UFOs you can find in subsection P2
from volume 13 of my monograph [1/4] "Advanced magnetic devices" - you
can download this monograph free of charge from the totaliztic web
page "text_1_4.htm". Further evidence in support of the formal proof
for the existence of UFOs (and for the existence of "evil UFOnauts"
which for thousands of years secretly exploit our civilisation) is
provided on the totaliztic web pages named "evil.htm" and
"evidence.htm" - all of which can be run from any address listed in my
previous posts just by replacing the page-name in this address with
the required page-name. It is nothing unusual to have an open mind for
everything, not just for the existence of God or for the non-existence
of the "big bang". I also believe that if other scientists would have
a bit more open minds, our world would NOT land in such bad shape as
we see it now around ourselves. After all, we know from history that
everything at some stage being scoffed at and spitted, some time later
was implemented and worked (works) for the good of our civilisation.
E.g. we remeber how Scientific American published a sacientific
article that "heave than air flying machines are impossible" at the
same time when first airplanes were already build in America. We also
remember how English scientists scoffed at Wilkinson when he proposed
the construction of boats made of steel - as in minds of these
scientists supposedly "nothing of steel could float". (Similar
examples of close-mindness of so-called "scientists" we can quote in
dozens.) So all these close-minders ones who only are able to scoff
and spit at everything - please open your minds and you will see
things that now you do NOT believe these can exist.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

P.S. Regarding "telepathy" - means "speach-like sonic waves that
propagate in the counter-world", I would advice to have a look at the
totaliztic web page "telepathy.htm". (This counter-world is another
worls populated by God and by our souls. The formal proof for the
existence of this counter-world is provided on the thread
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/9d7e62b9be872ac3/2d70a1621314beb6#2d70a1621314beb6
.)

svb...@hotmail.co.uk

unread,
Apr 24, 2008, 5:06:08 AM4/24/08
to
On Apr 23, 10:05 pm, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote:
> "Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote in messagenews:fuksjo$eje$03$4...@news.t-online.com...| janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
<snipping>

>
> There is nothing to learn, but speculation.
> The Big Bang relies on a singularity which defies physics and so far there
> is no unifying theory.
>


Quite easy to understand really, from looking at the light from other
galaxies turned out that nearly all were rushing away from each other
(think doppler effect but with light instead of sound - redder than
normal means moving away).

Tiny bit of logic, if right now they're getting further apart, in the
past they must have been closer together and if you go far enough
backwards.......

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 25, 2008, 11:19:19 PM4/25/08
to
On Apr 24, 9:06 pm, svb1...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
...

> Quite easy to understand really, from looking at the light from other
> galaxies turned out that nearly all were rushing away from each other
> (think doppler effect but with light instead of sound - redder than
> normal means moving away).
>
> Tiny bit of logic, if right now they're getting further apart, in the
> past they must have been closer together and if you go far enough
> backwards...

WELL, what colour would have the light of stars then (i.e. "in the


past they must have been closer together and if you go far enough

backwards...")?

The above "evidence" in the form of the "red shift" in the light of
stars, is good for small children, but NOT for rationally thinkingt
people. For example, why all stars display this "red shift" - if the
"big bang" would in fact occur, then some stars should have a "red
shift" , while some other stars should have an opposite effect (as
some stars would then move in our direction). The explaionation for
this so-called "red shift" is actually completely different - as
provided in item #D2 of the totaliztic web page "dipolar_gravity.htm".
Namely, if the light propagates in the direction opposite to the
gravitational pull, it creates the "red shift". In turn, when the
light propagates along the gravitational pull, then it produces the
"blue shift". This is why the sky above the Earth is blue, while light
of all stars is red - the stronger the gravity, the more red the light
is. In other words, the whole idea of a "big bang" is a pseudo-
scientific rubbish inveted by people who cannot think rationally.
There was never such thing as the "big bang" in the universe! There is
also NO scientific evidence which would support the idea of the "big
bang"!

With the totalitztic salute,
Jan Pajak

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages